I feel like this is a bit to generous, if for whatever reason someone calls their component e2e.ts , it would not be compiled right? Is there a chance we can verify if the file content has Stencil primitivis for testing?

hmm we could, although this change is pretty much just restoring what the behavior was before #4315. Maybe it's a question of documenting that files which are named like this for some reason wouldn't be emitted?

Correct me if I am wrong but before #4315 we didn't had this whole if block. What is the intention of including emitFilePath.includes('/e2e.') and emitFilePath.includes('/spec.')? They don't match with common naming patterns afaics. I'ld suggest maybe only:

if (
  emitFilePath.includes('.e2e.ts') ||
  emitFilePath.includes('.spec.ts') ||
  emitFilePath === 'e2e.d.ts' ||
  emitFilePath === 'spec.d.ts'
) {
  // we don't want to write these to disk!
  return;
}

?

Yeah so we didn't have this block, but we did something similar elsewhere - here's the relevant diff: https://github.com/ionic-team/stencil/pull/4315/files#diff-641e8e3ba21b8a7166c9350fe42c34c2b33ccbc220173ecdda7b451da8a423ba

I just pulled in the /spec. thing because that was there in the old impl - I guess maybe if you had src/components/my-component/my-component.tsx maybe you could have spec.ts in the same directory?

Oh now I see it. Then it would make sense to have this, no?

if (
  emitFilePath.endsWith('e2e.ts') ||
  emitFilePath.endsWith('spec.ts') ||
  emitFilePath.endsWith('e2e.d.ts') ||
  emitFilePath.endsWith('spec.d.ts')
) {
  // we don't want to write these to disk!
  return;
}

Above would catch both cases even though it would surprise me if folks actually used spec.ts as test file names and would expect Stencil to detect this as a test file. Anyway, very minor nit, feel free to move forward with what makes sense.

yeah, I think that makes sense to me, I'll adjust it a bit!

I may also try to get a little regression test for this using one of our end-to-end projects